Most alternatives to traditional meat-inclusive diets are based upon the consumption of textured plant proteins as a substitute. The selling-points for this way of eating is that it has a lower climate impact and benefits individual health by reducing the risk of things like age-related diabetes and cardiovascular disease. While the climate-impact issue has been (and will continue to be) hotly debated, the overall nutritional value of these meat substitutes has not.

But recent research from Chalmers University of Technology in Sweden may change that. A team from that academic institution studied 44 different meat alternatives sold in Sweden and concluded that the presence of "antinutrients" in these products inhibited the absorption of important minerals in the body such as iron and zinc. While one of the study authors acknowledged plant-based foods as being "important for the transition to sustainable food production," he noted the need to "develop new methods to increase absorption of various important nutrients."

As many people make New Year's resolutions to eat healthier, I predict they will receive more and more push-back from industry and the scientific community as the year goes on, to the notion that eliminating meat from their diets is a good idea.